Anddenex

The number of sins might be finite but the consequences of sin are potentially infinite, so far as we understand it. So that would be an infinite problem solved by an infinite atonement.
But we do know that the atonement of Jesus Christ applies to other worlds as well. What I haven't heard is how many other worlds and for what duration. Assuming creation continues by God indefinitely, does that mean this atonement continues to apply to future creations as well? Or just the current ones? I don't know. But that could be a source of infinite sins.

I believe the Atonement did more than "pay some affixed, finite (but eternal*) price for each single, numerated sin of each individual within the specified set of individuals it covers".  I believe that Christ, through his Atonement did that; and gained power, authority, and other attributes and abilities which allow him to lead us back to God, if we will; and that He overcame the very concept of sin, the concept of weakness, the concept of failure, misery, and everything else hell has to offer.  By overcoming all those concepts, he gained said power, authority, ability, etc.  I think this is the "infinite" aspect (as well as what @mikbone said - Christ himself being infinite and eternal).  So yes, in a way, I suppose this is an infinite solution to a finite problem.  But it's an eternal solution to an eternal problem (the consequence of just one sin being eternal without Christ).
IMO, sin is a less useful word than "sinful".  We tend to think of sin as an event which has a start and an end.  I'm not so sure they're so easily delineated.  Thinking of our sinful nature seems more accurate.  Thinking of Christ having the ability, through His Atonement, to help us overcome our sinful natures seems more useful.
 
*Just try wrapping your head around "finite, but eternal" - that'll twist your brain in knots.

D&C 19:6-12 Gives a pertinent definition to the words endless and eternal.  The same likely applies to the word infinite.
I think that Jesus Christ’s Atonement applies to those pre-mortal spirits that heard the question, “Who shall I send?” - Abraham 3:27.
Of course, this could lead one to assume that there might be an infinite amount of infinite atonements.
Where was there ever a son without a father? and where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? - History, 1838–1856, volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844], p. 103, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed June 16, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/109
🎵 If you could hie to kolob 🎵 
♾️
 

This love, I think, is the main godly attribute that He developed, grace for grace, to a far greater extent than we ever did and are still challenged to do.
I believe I have come to realize that Heavenly Father is not hiding from us, nor hiding behind His Son because He cannot tolerate the least degree of sin or telestial conditions (after, all, He has appeared or at least spoken directly to some few on earth). Instead, He has placed us in a telestial sphere where we can discover the eternal medium and language of communicating and communicating with Him. Once we catch on to that, we can progress as His Son did, premortally and in this life. He sent His Son by way of a fallen mortal body to show us, because we could not endure the Father's direct presence without quickening -- and how can that happen without faith?. His Son's eternal light shines in the darkness of this world through His personal pre-mortal and mortal mission, and now after His resurrection also. We come to recognize it, and choose to either receive it or reject it (in degrees, of course).

1) This is where I like the language from Alma 13, and in particular verse 5. Our Savior was the only one of us who was perfect from the beginning, which is why he was the only one who could perform the Atonement. I agree with the principle of intelligence and exercising faith.  The difference would be similar to the differences we see in our modern physical world. A person that cleaves unto light and truth and never denying will be worlds apart from an individual who cleaves unto darkness and error. I think the language of Christ being "like unto God (the Father)" is a very important principle, "And there stood one among them that was like unto God," in light of other intelligences present -- Abraham being one of them.
2) His love for God was perfect. That is what separates Him from us. If we all had the same love Christ has for his Father, we would have been able to accomplish the same feats, but our love for God was not perfect (Satan is evidence of this).
 

1) This is where I like the language from Alma 13, and in particular verse 5. Our Savior was the only one of us who was perfect from the beginning, which is why he was the only one who could perform the Atonement. I agree with the principle of intelligence and exercising faith.  The difference would be similar to the differences we see in our modern physical world. A person that cleaves unto light and truth and never denying will be worlds apart from an individual who cleaves unto darkness and error. I think the language of Christ being "like unto God (the Father)" is a very important principle, "And there stood one among them that was like unto God," in light of other intelligences present -- Abraham being one of them.
2) His love for God was perfect. That is what separates Him from us. If we all had the same love Christ has for his Father, we would have been able to accomplish the same feats, but our love for God was not perfect (Satan is evidence of this).
 

Effort?
"18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." (Doctrine and Covenants 130)
**Maybe the same principle applies to pre-mortal --> mortal life. **

Anyone remember Dr. Laura Schlessinger and her AM radio show?  She's made a career of urging moms to stay at home with their kids.  One of her books was "Don't have them if you don't want to raise them" if I remember correctly.
Her take on a mother's role doesn't rule out working outside the home.  It is all about prioritizing the child's needs, and being there when the child is home.  Once the kids were in school at age 5, she was totally down with moms pursuing careers, furthering their education, whatever - as long as it was done mostly during the hours the kid was in school.
 

I think the biggest factor involved is the motivation of the parent.  
Do the children know that Dad is out working to provide for the family.  But that he would rather be home if possible to spend time with his wife and children.
Or is Dad’s motivation acquiring a me wall, material toys, adultery, escape from an unsatisfactory home life, etc.
I see so many African American males who love and would do anything for their single mothers working one or more jobs.  I believe it is because the boys know that they are loved, that they are the main concern for the mother and that sacrifices have been made for them.
When children see a juggling mother who has multiple concerns and has her children as priority (other than #1) they know it.
 

This is a more insightful comparison than you might realize.
The Samuel principle is what is driving this.  The Lord made it clear what the "ideal model" of the family should look like.  Yes, there are exceptions that we all acknowledge.  Sometimes things are out of our control.  But where we can obey, we need to obey.
But instead of being sorry that we HAD to move away from the standard that the Lord has set, too many are trying to find excuses/loopholes to justify deviation from the ideal.  Just as the Israelites demanded to abandon the system that the Lord set up, they wanted to be like other nations.  And that led to the destruction of the nation.
When the Lord said that there is no more honored role than that of mother, He meant it.  Just as Israel split and was eventually destroyed, it will only be a matter of a few generations (if left unhindered) before the US falls to a similar fate.  
The Lord allowed for Saul to be anointed as King.  He warned it was a bad idea.  And He instituted some stop-gap measures that may minimize the damage.  That in no way meant that He was endorsing it.
Similarly, enough Saints are now asking for a king... err... working mothers.  Well, He gave them one.  Pres. Johnson. 
Can most women do the same?  Absolutely not!  Do some women have the ability to do such "juggling"? Of course.  But just as it was not a good idea to have kings, it is not a good idea to think that working mothers is the ideal to aspire to. 
There was a reason Mosiah wanted to change to a system of judges.  He reminded people of King Noah and his goons.  That's not the way he wanted us to live.
Your willingness to sacrifice will be seen by the Lord.  And you will be blessed for it.
BTW: Saul did not "sacrifice" as we think of it.  He collected not the firstlings, but the fatlings.  Big difference.  He only used sacrifice as a pretext to eat that yummy meat from the enemy flocks & herds.
YOU have sacrificed.

Wow!  That sounds like my days in college as well.  But I hadn't gotten married until my final year.  And we didn't have our first child for another two years after leaving school. 
My wife worked outside the home until a few months before delivery.  Ever since then she has been a SAHM.  Only a couple of years ago, she got a job at our children's school to be able to spend time with them during the day.
As for your sacrifices, I hope you had the time to see my post about my wife's grandmother.  It may seem like everything is ok for a while.  But at some point, the chickens come home to roost.  The Lord knows the end from the beginning.  And while obeying will be very difficult at times, we'll eventually see the wisdom in it.
I promise you that the sacrifices you made will bring you blessings that you would not have had if you had done things differently.

Ah, here we are dealing with two sides of a simple coin. In our scriptures, we can see both sides of the coin being taught. The side you are speaking of is as follows, "Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am." No one here, including myself, is arguing against this position.
The other side of the coin is also in the same book of scripture, "Behold, my sons, I desire that ye should remember to keep the commandments of God; and I would that ye should declare unto the people these words. Behold, I have given unto you the names of our first parents who came out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I have done that when you remember your names ye may remember them; and when ye remember them ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know how that it is said, and also written, that they were good. Therefore, my sons, I would that ye should do that which is good, that it may be said of you, and also written, even as it has been said and written of them."
Here we have a father telling his kids to look to "fallible" people who loved God, and to follow the works they chose and to make the same decisions so that it could be said of you the same. All of these Book of Mormon prophets were individuals, disciples of Christ, whose choices and actions were worthy of emulation.
President Monson shared this side of the coin also with the following, "My brethren, I reiterate that, as holders of the priesthood of God, it is our duty to live our lives in such a way that we may be examples of righteousness for others to follow." If we are living lives for others to follow, then we are living lives worthy of emulation.
And another verse of scripture that is worthy of emulation is that of Captain Moroni, "Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men." (emphasis mine)
A fallible man who the Lord said if all men had been like unto him (a life worthy of emulation), the very powers of hell would have been shaken.
There are two sides to this coin. Of course we want to be like Christ, and Christ has given us "fallible" men/women to be like unto so that we may be like unto Christ. If a person's life isn't worthy of emulation (and are a leader) it will be harder on faithful believers who have sacrificed to follow counsel from someone who sacrificed the counsel for their benefit. It just a factual aspect of life.
And this is why the other side of the coin is most important, we remember who we are actually emulating and that is Christ, and if he is our foundation then we will continue moving forward. Because we recognize the otherside of the coin is simply to bring us to the same conclusion -- follow Christ.

Don't worry, it's not hard to keep up with my family, not sure why people want to...most have surpassed us, so...no worries there!
Your son is a Draftsman???
That's phenomenal.  Is Texas behind the rest of the Nation in Engineering disciplines and such?
Most firms that have been hiring around us have gotten rid of draftsmen these days.  With the programs they are using and the things that they are utilizing, the need for draftsmen seems to have fallen off a cliff.  We no longer even offer such programs at our university the demand is so low, and helping those who were trained in it seems to be better suited to cross training them to a different field then having them persist as such.
Kudos to your son, but I know in many areas that's a very limited career field these days. 
Even when it was still somewhat being useful over a decade ago, the average pay wasn't more than $15-$20 an hour for what we were seeing in the experienced draftsmen as the computer programs and other items were already hitting that field rather hard. 
It hit a couple of the men in our stake rather hard as well and over the past decade most have stopped being draftsmen and moved to connected fields.  When I was serving in leadership it was particularly dire for two families were invested with, as they lost their jobs and were have a tough time finding new ones. 
It must be vastly different in Texas it sounds like.
I'm not really replying to your post, but using it as a jumping off point to respond to the thread's topic.
I am conflicted to some degree about the topic.  I believe mothers should raise their children.  I believe that the lack of mother's in the home have led to a LOT of our societal decay in the West and the failure of morality in our young people (95+% will have marital relation before they are actually married for example).  We see more and more of the younger people simply not having the morals we would think were basic decencies in our day.
I am also a hypocrite.  Let me explain.  I had an incredibly brilliant daughter.  IQ tested over 160.  Extremely intelligent girl.  She literally was the most brilliant child in the area, and the opportunities for her were endless.  I encouraged her to pursue education.  I knew she could be highly successful if she put her mind to it, but when I talk success, I wasn't thinking of her as a home maker, but in the working world. 
And, I was right.  She WAS brilliant.  She was absolutely a wonder to behold.  Then she had children and tried to be a SAHM.  She was absolutely miserable.  Terribly miserable.  Miserable to the point that there was concern for her mental health in a very serious manner.  The best cure was for her to be with someone close to her peer, and that wasn't with the other SAHM generally.  She went back to work and she LOVED it.  She LOVED being at the job. 
I love my daughter.  I want the best for her.  I do not have all the answers.  All I know is that as she tried to be a SAHM it was a terrible thing for her personally.  I can see with her kids how it has affected them.  There are some that have a hard time with the Church.  It probably would have been better if they had a mother that was always home for them, but I don't think that was possible, at least not if we wanted my daughter to still be alive today. 
I don't have the answers.  I can't say that I did the best thing with my kids.  Perhaps it's my fault for encouraging my daughter when she was younger to pursue life and what she could do with it.  I don't know, but I know that the Lord loves her and her children just as much as anyone else. 
 

I'm late to the conversation; however, this is another one of those items that I find difficult. I brought up a similar conversation regarding keeping the Sabbath day holy and recent general authorities who played professional sports. The Church taught in seminary about the BYU player who turned down a professional career in football because he was taught by his parents to keep the Sabbath day holy. As it turns out, he should have played professional sports.
This is one of those items in our day where the scripture seems to be loud and clear, "It is better to obey, than to sacrifice." Yet, it seems as though in some lives they are still lifted up even though they sacrificed rather than obeyed.  This is one of the conundrums I don't understand.
"Let God prevail..." means to let God prevail. It means to obey rather than to sacrifice. I can empathize with any mother who obeyed (put off a career) rather than sacrifice (kept career) and did not experience the same financial stability. So, I have a hard time reading a comment that talks about letting God prevail when their choices clearly showed they did not let God prevail, they merely kept doing what they wanted to do. I can think of many homes right now who did obey, who did sacrifice, and how I have watched them struggle financially. Now, it seems like their struggles were vain. They should have sacrificed, rather than obeyed (and at least obeyed in all other aspects) so they could enjoy more financial freedom.
This is the type of post that causes any person who has been obeying rather than sacrificing to feel/think, "Have I had everything wrong?" Why keep the commandment if the commandment is subjective? If I can merely converse with God to do what I want, why have the commandment/counsel in the first place?
I remember reading articles talking about the seductiveness of two incomes, and how two incomes will only make it harder for a woman to stay at home without entering the workforce if her husband doesn't have a high paying job. This sister increased that likelyhood. Making it harder for others to follow the counsel, and now she is in a leading position counseling mothers to be mothers, while she put a career ahead of being a mother.
These are tough situations. These are times where the scriptures specifying "Do not judge" come into play also. It seems as though the idea from President Nelson regarding having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is more real than ever.

Well...
1 Corinthians 11:1
"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." (KJV)

"Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ." (CSB)

*We are counseled to take the lives of the faithful that have gone before and use their lives as models for Christian living. *

I think Harrison Butker actually did a better job articulating/clarifying the work/motherhood idea. He basically said that no achievement outside of the home will measure up to the fulfillment of being a mother, without saying that being a working mother is bad. I think we believe the same thing, but for some reason, lately, our leaders haven't been so plainly spoken, leaving the impression that they can be equally fulfilling.

It matters.  We did similar.  Our decisions / efforts / hardships / trials have made us strong and wise.  Our testimonies are based upon the core gospel of Jesus Christ which requires sacrifice and accountability.  Our testimonies are not based upon current church policy, acceptance, the winds of current social justice idealism, or unconditional love.
I remember when I was a missionary branch president and I had to call a relief society president.  I did some research about the women in the ward and then prayed about it.  The first 5 women that I extend the call either flat out refused or informed me that they were currently disfellowshipped.  I eventually set apart the 6th woman that I extended the calling, and at that point, I had stopped praying about the decision.
I hope that this is what has happened with some of the recent callings.  But with 16M members in the church, you’d think we could do better.
But then again, look at the options that we currently have for leader of the free world.
God help us.
 

Thanks for your additional positive thought JAG. This hits a little harder for me due to choices my wife and I made while we were newly weds to obey. As a result, while going through school I was working a full-time swing and a part-time graveyard to keep my wife home as a primary nurturer and caregiver. This all while taking 12 -17 credits at BYU.
This resulted in me also for a year working a full-time graveyard and full-time morning job due to difficulties that came upon us. This was all to obey and not to sacrifice.
If I would have known this was simply "a choice" my life and mental state, anxiety, stress, etc... could have been so much better. This to me is more a kick in the jewels and then a knee to the face. Why did I make these decisions if it really doesn't matter? But it has to matter doesn't it.
In saying that, I agree with your last paragraph. A hard decision will be when to have kids for our young members.

As a practice -- perhaps. But as an ideology I think it still has hold in the culture so long as the term "working mother" is still tossed around (especially when "working father" isn't).

Losses inexorably change the nature of the battlefield.  Thanks to inflation fed in part by a labor glut, what was once attainable for the vast majority of families who put their minds to it (specifically, subsisting and even thriving on a single income), no longer is.
I’m not sure what you mean by pivoting or suggesting that it’s a rare thing.  Every time the left “wins” on a particular issue, they tend to open up a new front; and the right feels it has to fight it.  Got sex ed in schools?  Great, now hide the curriculum from parents.  Got legalized abortion?  Great, now offer it at taxpayer expense and make it legal up to 39 weeks.  Got gay marriage?  Great, now get dudes in drag to do strip shows in schools.  Got legal equality for racial minorities?  Great, now let’s institutionalize reverse-discrimination.  I don’t think the right “pivoting” is odd or surprising at all;  it’s just conservatives trying to conserve.

With regard to Pres. Johnson’s Facebook post:  I think the subtext is a recognition that, as @Anddenex suggests, a lot of women have sort of been pulled kicking and screaming into the workforce out of necessity (because their families are grappling with inflation caused by, among many other things, a rising number of two-income families with more disposable income) (and whether President Johnson’s life choices thirty decades ago were part of the problem, is another discussion).  But the crux of her post, as I read it, was “even if you’re working, don’t wait to have kids. You were created to be a parent first and foremost, and you can make it work.”  Which, I think, is a timely message.
I’ll certainly advise my sons and sons in law to pursue careers that will give them the financial latitude to permit their wives stay home full time.  But I’m not sure it’s desirable—or possible—to have a church where every (or most) adult male clears six figures per year.  If a critical mass of LDS women are going to be establishing careers, then the inevitable next question is “do they have kids sooner, or later?”  And that’s a no-brainer as far as our theology is concerned; and President Johnson is (as President Oaks affirmed) endorsing a proper example in that regard.
In other words:  The fight over whether mothers should stay home with their children was well-fought and no doubt improved many lives and even saved many souls.  But the battlefield has changed.  The fight now isn’t whether mothers work outside of the home; it’s whether women become mothers at all.  

I'm late to the conversation; however, this is another one of those items that I find difficult. I brought up a similar conversation regarding keeping the Sabbath day holy and recent general authorities who played professional sports. The Church taught in seminary about the BYU player who turned down a professional career in football because he was taught by his parents to keep the Sabbath day holy. As it turns out, he should have played professional sports.
This is one of those items in our day where the scripture seems to be loud and clear, "It is better to obey, than to sacrifice." Yet, it seems as though in some lives they are still lifted up even though they sacrificed rather than obeyed.  This is one of the conundrums I don't understand.
"Let God prevail..." means to let God prevail. It means to obey rather than to sacrifice. I can empathize with any mother who obeyed (put off a career) rather than sacrifice (kept career) and did not experience the same financial stability. So, I have a hard time reading a comment that talks about letting God prevail when their choices clearly showed they did not let God prevail, they merely kept doing what they wanted to do. I can think of many homes right now who did obey, who did sacrifice, and how I have watched them struggle financially. Now, it seems like their struggles were vain. They should have sacrificed, rather than obeyed (and at least obeyed in all other aspects) so they could enjoy more financial freedom.
This is the type of post that causes any person who has been obeying rather than sacrificing to feel/think, "Have I had everything wrong?" Why keep the commandment if the commandment is subjective? If I can merely converse with God to do what I want, why have the commandment/counsel in the first place?
I remember reading articles talking about the seductiveness of two incomes, and how two incomes will only make it harder for a woman to stay at home without entering the workforce if her husband doesn't have a high paying job. This sister increased that likelyhood. Making it harder for others to follow the counsel, and now she is in a leading position counseling mothers to be mothers, while she put a career ahead of being a mother.
These are tough situations. These are times where the scriptures specifying "Do not judge" come into play also. It seems as though the idea from President Nelson regarding having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is more real than ever.

The Lord commands us to Obey...
The Lord blesses us for our obedience...
But he also blesses us when we strive to obey...  I am very grateful for this last bit because I pretty much never perfectly get the first one.
This means if I am striving to follow Gods commands on how my family should be run.  And I am studying and praying and pondering... and then faithful try to do according to the guidance the Lord has given me... and I get it wrong... I still get the blessings.  This is absolutely wonderful given how much I fail (and we all fail)
What I can't not be doing is a wink, wink, nod, nod, of course I strove for the answers and this is what the Lord told me to do. When I really did not, because that might fool people but it does not fool the Lord.
Now when hearing about other peoples attempts to strive to obey the commands, I can of course doubt them when they say its what the Lord told them to do.  But If I am striving the follow the Lords commands that would have to include Righteous Judgements, the Golden Rule, and Charity.  Then I need to keep said doubts to myself...  Or at least limit them to those I have stewardship over.

I've thought about this and I'm leaning toward the idea that it is not about right v wrong, or correct v incorrect. Neither is it about obeying or disobeying.  It is really about "are you able to do this?"
For most women, the answer is "No, you will definitely neglect your family."  For others, the answer is,"yes, but you're really just making your life harder.  And you'll eventually have to choose between your career or your family.  Are you sure you're going to be willing to give up your career when that eventuality occurs?"  For a very few, the answer is "yes... but... be sure you continue to make family the priority in your life.  Don't lose sight of what is most precious." The reason why this last is so uncommon is the reason women go to work v. why men go to work.
Women go to work to gain status or to feel "fulfilled." Unless they have to, they don't go to work to support the family.  Thus single mothers are part of the "have to go to work" group.  They do it because they need to support the family.
Men go to work first and foremost because we need to support our family.  It has been the husbandly and fatherly role since pre-historic times.  It always will be so.  Take that away from the man and he feels emasculated.  If we can't support our family, it destroys us spiritually, mentally, and emotionally.
Do we want fulfillment and status?  Absolutely.  Of course we do. But it is not the primary purpose of a man's profession.  And it is much less common for a man to lose sight of this.
Ask 100 men who make the median salary: Would you clean sewers for $100k/yr?  99 of them would say "Yes, absolutely!" Ask 100 women the same question.  1 of them might accept. So, unless you're the one woman who would accept, chances are that your claim that you "need" to work outside the home is a false one.
To bring it back to the beginning...  Sis Johnson didn't seem to need to go to work to support the family.  But she seemed to be the 1/1000 who can do it all and continue to make family the priority in her life.
The danger here is so many women who cannot do so will look at her example and think, "Why can't I do that?"
Answer: Because you're only in it for yourself and you're not willing to sacrifice what you need to do in order to make family a priority.
CONDITION: It is a LOT easier for a career woman to make family a priority if she works part-time or has a home-based business.  And lawyering is one of those professions where you can do that (depending on the type of law she practices).  So, if you have a profession that allows you to be with your children, then great.  Just be sure to make them the priority, not your career.

Yep, this is him. I would have loved to have seen him as a general authority. One who obeyed rather than sacrificed.